In interstellar space and the stellar nebula where our sun formed.

Nope. You're what Winston Churchill called a fanatic: One who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

I hope Azhura Mazda (or whatever fake deity you subscribe to) takes pity on you.

Oh, and have a great evening! Just, please, make it one that doesn't include me.

I'm not exactly clear what evidence for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being your peer-reviewed study provides. Apparently, less than a fifth (18%) of respondents claimed to experience something rather than nothing during a period when they were experiencing a loss of blood flow to the brain. How those experiences were formed, and what their objective significance was, is not addressed at all. Not moving the goalposts here at all. There is absolutely zero data in that study which indicates the existence of anything resembling whatever it is that you're referring to.

I did not mean to cast any aspersions on your belief system. If you felt I did, please accept my apologies. However, while I hold no malice toward you personally, I do not subscribe to a belief system that has supernatural components. I won't shy away from expressing my opinion. And I'm certainly not trying to shout you down or censor you.

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.
Just to clarify, Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, (empeiría).

To be fair, theories expounding the existence (or non-existence) of Yahweh or Hashem or Shiva or Ahura Mazda aren't falsifiable, so science cannot directly address such questions. However, just as we can infer the existence of black holes due to their effects on other celestial objects, there should be at least *some* empirical evidence, somewhere that points to that. Oh, and by the way, which one is the one you say is the real one?

As for proof There is no such thing as absolute proof. At the same time, any genuine scientific evidence would be welcome. What's that? Nothing? I'm shocked! Truly shocked!

As Carl Sagan (and quite correctly, IMHO) pointed out, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." A claim that some vast, timeless, humani-form diety exists and takes an interest in the life on this planet, is quite an extraordinary claim. All I asked was for a single, verifiable piece of evidence. I haven't seen one yet.

You can keep trying if you like, but unless you can produce scientific evidence of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who created the cosmos, I'm not buying what you're selling.

I suggest you cut your losses with me and move on to potentially greener pastures, friend. Have a great day!

No intellectual dishonesty here, friend. That's the beauty of having an open mind: when new evidence is presented, I can use that information to expand my understanding of the universe around me. I am completely open to new ideas and understandings of the universe. However, I take empiricism very seriously. As such, for evidence to be valid, it must be identifiable, classifiable, and most of all, when identical methodologies are applied, repeatable.

From my perspective, those goalposts have never, and will never move.

I will go on to say that "religious" perspectives have often been used to popularize various life patterns or paths. *Sometimes*, they've even been useful, and could (in certain cases, i.e., buddhism) even be reasonably argued to be, a "good thing."(TM) That said, the creation myths of the belief systems generally referred to as "religions" do not jibe with the evidence collected, quite painstakingly, in our objective reality and do nothing to increase our understanding of the universe around us.

Science is a methodology and has exactly zero to do with metaphysical questions of existence and meaning. If you get your meaning from one bunch of stories, who am I to say they are meaningless? They mean something to you. That doesn't mean they have any relevance to me.

I have no issue with alternate belief systems per se, but for me to subscribe to one or more of those, the belief system must be self-consistent and not contradict the evidence we have explaining why the world is the way it is.

Here's the deal I made with all the "Jews For Jesus" folks who accosted me while commuting back when I was a teenager: "I'm an empiricist. If you can provide me with one, just one, verifiable piece of actual evidence proving the existence of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent 'thing' you call 'god' I will drop everything and join you." I make the same offer to you, Empiric. Are you up to it?

There. FTFM.

PassTime, the manufacturer of the ignition disabling device released a statement today stating, "Our new video linkages allow you to watch the driver as you disable their car. Now with 50% more Schedenfreude!"

Paul Venezia is not worth reading, let alone discussing, IMHO.

Just like a lot of things. Here you go.

I'm sorry. Please point out where I made any remarks that could be considered to be ad hominem attacks. My point about reading comprehension was *not* irrelevant to the discussion (and hence, not 'ad hominem'). In fact, It wasn't really even an attack, just an observation.

Also, I'm not sure who the "he" you're referring to might be. Please enlighten me.